From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com> To: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:40:36 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220518154037.18819-4-mkoutny@suse.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220518154037.18819-1-mkoutny@suse.com> The numbers are not easy to derive in a closed form (certainly mere protections ratios do not apply), therefore use a simulation to obtain expected numbers. The new values make the protection tests succeed more precisely. % run as: octave-cli script % % Input configurations % ------------------- % E parent effective protection % n nominal protection of siblings set at the givel level % c current consumption -,,- % example from testcase (values in GB) E = 50 / 1024; n = [75 25 0 500 ] / 1024; c = [50 50 50 0] / 1024; % Reclaim parameters % ------------------ % Minimal reclaim amount (GB) cluster = 32*4 / 2**20; % Reclaim coefficient (think as 0.5^sc->priority) alpha = .1 % Simulation parameters % --------------------- epsilon = 1e-7; timeout = 1000; % Simulation loop % --------------------- % Simulation assumes siblings consumed the initial amount of memory (w/out % reclaim) and then the reclaim starts, all memory is reclaimable, i.e. treated % same. It simulates only non-low reclaim and assumes all memory.min = 0. ch = []; eh = []; rh = []; for t = 1:timeout % low_usage u = min(c, n); siblings = sum(u); % effective_protection() protected = min(n, c); % start with nominal e = protected * min(1, E / siblings); % normalize overcommit % recursive protection unclaimed = max(0, E - siblings); parent_overuse = sum(c) - siblings; if (unclaimed > 0 && parent_overuse > 0) overuse = max(0, c - protected); e += unclaimed * (overuse / parent_overuse); endif % get_scan_count() r = alpha * c; % assume all memory is in a single LRU list % commit 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection") sz = max(e, c); r .*= (1 - (e+epsilon) ./ (sz+epsilon)); % uncomment to debug prints % e, c, r % nothing to reclaim, reached equilibrium if max(r) < epsilon break; endif % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX r = max(r, (r > epsilon) .* cluster); % XXX here I do parallel reclaim of all siblings % in reality reclaim is serialized and each sibling recalculates own residual c = max(c - r, 0); ch = [ch ; c]; eh = [eh ; e]; rh = [rh ; r]; endfor t c, e Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> --- .../selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 20 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index eba252fa64ac..9ffacf024bbd 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup) * memory pressure in it. * * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/C memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, and checks @@ -365,10 +365,10 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) @@ -417,9 +417,9 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) * * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/ memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/ memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, @@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) -- 2.35.3
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> To: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kselftest-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:40:36 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220518154037.18819-4-mkoutny@suse.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220518154037.18819-1-mkoutny-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> The numbers are not easy to derive in a closed form (certainly mere protections ratios do not apply), therefore use a simulation to obtain expected numbers. The new values make the protection tests succeed more precisely. % run as: octave-cli script % % Input configurations % ------------------- % E parent effective protection % n nominal protection of siblings set at the givel level % c current consumption -,,- % example from testcase (values in GB) E = 50 / 1024; n = [75 25 0 500 ] / 1024; c = [50 50 50 0] / 1024; % Reclaim parameters % ------------------ % Minimal reclaim amount (GB) cluster = 32*4 / 2**20; % Reclaim coefficient (think as 0.5^sc->priority) alpha = .1 % Simulation parameters % --------------------- epsilon = 1e-7; timeout = 1000; % Simulation loop % --------------------- % Simulation assumes siblings consumed the initial amount of memory (w/out % reclaim) and then the reclaim starts, all memory is reclaimable, i.e. treated % same. It simulates only non-low reclaim and assumes all memory.min = 0. ch = []; eh = []; rh = []; for t = 1:timeout % low_usage u = min(c, n); siblings = sum(u); % effective_protection() protected = min(n, c); % start with nominal e = protected * min(1, E / siblings); % normalize overcommit % recursive protection unclaimed = max(0, E - siblings); parent_overuse = sum(c) - siblings; if (unclaimed > 0 && parent_overuse > 0) overuse = max(0, c - protected); e += unclaimed * (overuse / parent_overuse); endif % get_scan_count() r = alpha * c; % assume all memory is in a single LRU list % commit 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection") sz = max(e, c); r .*= (1 - (e+epsilon) ./ (sz+epsilon)); % uncomment to debug prints % e, c, r % nothing to reclaim, reached equilibrium if max(r) < epsilon break; endif % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX r = max(r, (r > epsilon) .* cluster); % XXX here I do parallel reclaim of all siblings % in reality reclaim is serialized and each sibling recalculates own residual c = max(c - r, 0); ch = [ch ; c]; eh = [eh ; e]; rh = [rh ; r]; endfor t c, e Signed-off-by: Michal Koutn√Ω <mkoutny-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> --- .../selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 20 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index eba252fa64ac..9ffacf024bbd 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup) * memory pressure in it. * * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/C memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, and checks @@ -365,10 +365,10 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) @@ -417,9 +417,9 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) * * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/ memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/ memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, @@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) -- 2.35.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-18 15:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-05-18 15:40 [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests: memcg: Fix compilation Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` Michal Koutný [this message] 2022-05-18 15:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests: memcg: Remove protection from top level memcg Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 15:40 ` Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 16:27 ` [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný 2022-05-18 16:27 ` Michal Koutný -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2022-05-12 17:44 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet 2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný 2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Michal Koutný 2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný 2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20220518154037.18819-4-mkoutny@suse.com \ --to=mkoutny@suse.com \ --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \ --cc=rpalethorpe@suse.de \ --cc=shakeelb@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.